They simply don’t exist anymore. The only choice is to do this with a smart TV and never connect it to the internet.

Already looked into it, and see no reason for it. I don’t particularly care a few liters more size of my PC, my home can handle it. Additional cost = not worth

How are you spending a day building a new PC though? :( I’m always done in 30mins - 1 hour max :(

Friend, keeping a partner is also necessary for reproductive success. A child historically had a higher survival rate when parents stayed together. I didn’t say that you actually want to pick anyone up with your conscious mind, I’m just saying that the decisions you make are motivated by reproductive success.

Why do you think you even feel the need to cover up your balding head. It’s the same reason, just suddenly even more obvious.

Then you should probably leave every game, because you can probably find some dumbfucks that argue about this everywhere. There are less than 30 people posting on this Steam discussion linked.

You may not believe it, but most of our behavior is motivated by sex and appealing to our desired mates. Even if you rationally say you don’t want to pick up anyone with your rainbow hat, the original impetus to do it at all comes from a biological mind that is designed to reproduce. Being confident in who you are is a desirable trait in a partner, thus making you more attractive, thus contributing to your biological goal of reproduction. Yes, you have more rational reasons for it than just that, but it’s extremely likely that the wearing of the rainbow hat feels good to you because of million years of evolution to optimize reproductive success.

And yes, even homosexual people are subject to that, even though they technically can’t reproduce. Which I think is pretty funny honestly xD

It’s also interesting that you bring all the heterosexual signals up as some kind of counterpoint… but they serve the same goal.

TSS? Totally sexy speech? “Text sucks” software? Tangible speech service?

Reddit is basically entirely image or video posts, all hosted by reddit directly.

There’s definitely a balance to be struck, and it depends on the table. I would only do this on a table where the rules are actually just guidelines.

For many others, a world needs to make sense internally. It doesn’t need to make real-world sense, but within the world with its different reality, things kinda need to be consistent. For example, if it is easily possible for a wizard to circumvent your will save by asking a trick question, the whole world would look completely different. Almost everyone who interacts with any kind of wizard would be extremely guarded around giving consent for anything since it might just be a ploy to remove their resistances.

A resourceful/logical player would now try to trick an NPC into agreeing first, and well, if it doesn’t work, you can still cast the spell normally, nothing lost. You could ask them to stop, or they could recognize themselves that doing it like that wouldn’t be fun, but if you act in the world you usually always try to make the best decisions. If you artificially limit that in a fourth-wall-breaking way, the game actually starts to lose its appeal.

If you allow stuff like this all the time, eventually the alternate reality of your characters will just become a random clown show. Problem solving will just be about who comes up with the most ridiculous thing that makes everyone laugh about its absurdity. There will be no logic or rational thought involved anymore, it’ll be no simulation anymore, just a sandbox. Which again, might be fine for certain tables, but many want to be able to immerse themselves in a different world that they can accept as at least possible, which is the actual fun for them.

So no, you aren’t necessarily “not fun” if you don’t allow this as a DM. You’re just playing a different kind of game with a different kind of fun.

Most “far right” people are exactly the kind that made the comment you reply to. I have a “friend” that became exactly like this.

Defense lawyers are supposed to try everything they can to defend their client, no matter how little sense it makes. It is theoretically possible for an admission of guilt to be false.

It’s up to the judge to understand their arguments are worthless and rule accordingly.

That’s how this is supposed to work.

It depends entirely on the maturity of the parties involved, it’s not really an “older/younger” thing.

But generally, the less mature you are, the more a relationship is selfish, i.e. you want to be in a relationship for your personal advantage, i.e. “i get sex when I have a girlfriend”. The more mature you get, the more relationships go into the direction of “I want to make the other person happy”. You still get your sex or whatever other advantage of course, but it’s much more fulfilling if you can actually give the other person what they need, and temporarily losing your personal benefit of the relationship doesn’t cause immediate breakups.

They don’t really. They are often learned the hard way, because no one attempts to explain them or just acts like they know but doesn’t really.

No one said at all that AI used “reason” to talk people out of a conspiracy theory. In fact I would assume it’s incredibly unlikely since AI in general is not reasonable.

It’s relatively reasonable to expect a person to lie, it’s a bit less reasonable to expect two people to lie, it’s even less reasonable to expect someone to lie in a professional context where their livelihood depends on them not being discovered to be lying.

It makes a certain sense when you look at it that way from an employer’s perspective.

Of course, like you probably understand, it doesn’t make any sense after all, because in the end if you go to a doctor and lie about being sick (symptoms), the doctor is neither lying nor professionally liable and the whole thing is just an additional hurdle to go through.

But that hurdle is also part of the point to reduce the convenience of lying. And I’m absolutely sure that this additional hurdle has prevented someone somewhere from calling in sick while they aren’t.

Again of course, that likely hasn’t resulted in more work being done, because obviously the employee had a reason to lie about being sick. But whatever, I’ll stop now.

What to do with it is to act understanding and empathetic with people like that instead of standoffish and hostile. You still insist on the better way of doing things, but there’s no actual need to attack anyone that doesn’t support the better way of doing things, even if their reasons aren’t rational or even morally questionable/bad. It only serves to further entrench them in their positions, while the opposite might have a chance to happen in a more cooperative approach.

Funny how you made exactly the comment the article predicted within itself xD

Why would you ask questions when it’s the same day? Like, don’t all sicknesses start being noticed one specific day and thus you take sick leave starting that day? That’s literally the only way it makes sense at all

Seems like you’re an asshole boss to me

Maybe you should explain your intention instead of making cryptic belittling remarks.

No one insulted you. They commented on the fact that you don’t understand reality for most people. “Oh honey” means “oh you are so innocent :/ that’s really sweet, I don’t want to make you feel bad by explaining reality to you”. They were kinda being nice to you in their way.

I’m more nice because I think people should know reality:

Most jobs are so easily replaceable and have so little protections that if you start citing laws and taking sick leave like it’s rightfully yours, you’ll be fired a bit later for “unrelated” reasons.

Thus while you are right that you would be able to get your sick leave by communicating the law, you will not really get them because you’ll be out of work in a few weeks. If you want to keep your job, you don’t communicate the law and don’t take your sick leave.

Btw, unionize to prevent all this.